KT wrote:Also, no one is driven by logic. Logic has no drive. It's a tool. We are all driven by emotion and desire. Without those drivers we don't even get out of bed.
Everyone is driven by intuition. There may be a lot of focus on logic, but even the application of logic to life, language, situations, will require all sorts of intuition.
FC wrote:Sure, logic is clearly a means and not a ground.
Sure, and if it had been worded your way - or otherwise clearly been intended that way - I would have focused on the other issue: the issue of intuition and non-logical processes being essential, even for the us of logic. With your version desire is in the picture. Logic is a tool chosen because of certain goals.Magnus Anderson wrote:But there is a different sense in which people can be driven by logic. Perhaps what they want to say is that they are making a lot more effort than others in trying to be as realistic as possible (and they want to be as realistic as possible because they think that being realistic is the surest way to increase the likelihood of attaining one's beliefs.)
There's a contradiction in this sentence, to me. If they're my interests then my emotions are involved. Emotions are motivators, along with desires. Without them we do not move toward things.And being driven by emotion, as I'm sure you know, most commonly describes certain type of behavior that goes against one's interests.
Could be.What I'm seeing here is people misunderstanding Sir Tabula Rasa. To be clear, I have no idea what he said and what FC is responding to, but my first impression is that he's being misunderstood.
I don't think this is true. I think we have temperments and tendencies. I think separated twin studies bear this out pretty well. Compared to other animals we can fill in a tremendous amount more stuff in the brain. And this includes learning skills and behaviors, not just knowledge. And also complicated self-relations that are less likely in other animals. So, I am in no way denying nurture's sway over what we become.In other news, the thread title made me think this thread is about the logical examination of the philosophical idea that human beings are born tabula rasa.
Everyone is driven by intuition. There may be a lot of focus on logic, but even the application of logic to life, language, situations, will require all sorts of intuition.
I agree. I think they are often thought of as distinct, but I disagree. Part of the issue is that much of intuition is blackboxed. We don't know exactly how conclusions are being reached, especially in many experts, but also in prodigies.It would be useful to examine the difference between the two words. Do they really represent different things? to what extent? and to what level of significance?
Yes.What's certain is that they are both tools. Not only that, they are both the same kind of tool. Both are epistemological tools i.e. tools used to form beliefs about reality.
The peculiar thing about intuition is that it's the process of forming beliefs where:
1) one is unaware of the process (one does not know how one comes to accept the belief)
2) one is often, but not always, unaware of the end product (the belief)
Sometimes we did build up skills more consciously and now they are second nature and we may have even forgotten the steps. But yes it can be like this.When we walk, we use intuition to model the ground. It's an interesting example because we're both unaware of the process and the end product. We don't know how we build the model of the ground, but also, we are unaware of the model that we build. Instead, we are merely aware of the kind of step we need to make (and sometimes, even that escapes our awareness.)
I don't think I said that or implied that, though I can imagine someone reading it that way. Yes, some people can be more logical than others. And one could also say that some people are more driven to be logical. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's not. There is a balance one should have when trying to problem solve, for example. Avoiding intuition and not trusting it can cause problems. I notice a lot of people who bring to bear logical, verbal skills to every problem, often not allowing things to percolate and distrusting anything they cannot logically (in their minds) explained. This can be very problematic. Of course avoiding logic is a problem also. And further just because someone follows their intuition does not mean they are right. One can be very intuitive (in the sense of insightful) in one, a few, no, areas of life. There are plenty of people with poor intuitions. And schools are fairly poor at teaching allowing either. I think they have a tendency to actively try to squash intuition, unless it is an a minor subject like art.Either way, not sure why you think there aren't people who are more logical than others.
Sure, I think there are people who are more logical than others and also people who can be more logical when that is appropriate. Though my sense is announcing it makes me doubt it. I mean from the posts I've seen he's certainly got more mental skills than the average person. None of what I have written is meant as a dig at Tab, except me saying that if you announce you are logic driven, it's a warning signal to me. Of course, I'd need to see the context to understand that further.Perhaps Tab isn't as logical as he claims -- fine. But I see no reason to attack the idea of logical man in general. And what if he merely wanted to say that he's more realistic than others? Perhaps this distinction between intuition and logic, the dual-process theory put forward by William James, was nowhere near his mind at the time?
FC wrote:Sure, logic is clearly a means and not a ground.
Being realistic is probably not the highest goal of human beings. The highest goal is something else but being realistic is perhaps the best way to ensure that the highest goal is attained.
KT wrote:Sure, and if it had been worded this way I would have focused on the other issue: that of intuition and non-logical processes being essential, even for the us of logic. With your version desire is in the picture. Logic is a tool chosen because of certain goals.
There's a contradiction in this sentence, to me. If there my interests then my emotions are involved. Emotions are motivators, along with desires. Without them we do not move to what would be our interests if we had emotions and desires.
If all you do is emote, like scream at a wall, well, you won't get your doctorate and be able to.....whatever your interest was. But without being driven by emotions (passions) and desires, you are aren't driven.
I agree. I think they are often thought of as distinct, but I disagree. Part of the issue is that much of intuition is blackboxed. We don't know exactly how conclusions are being reached, especially in many experts, but also in prodigies.
Sometimes we did build up skills more consciously and now they are second nature and we may have even forgotten the steps. But yes it can be like this.
There is a balance one should have when trying to problem solve, for example. Avoiding intuition and not trusting it can cause problems. I notice a lot of people who bring to bear logical, verbal skills to every problem, often not allowing things to percolate and distrusting anything they cannot logically (in their minds) explain. This can be very problematic. Of course avoiding logic is a problem also. And further just because someone follows their intuition does not mean they are right. One can be very intuitive (in the sense of insightful) in one, a few, no, areas of life. There are plenty of people with poor intuitions. And schools are fairly poor at teaching either. I think they have a tendency to actively try to squash intuition, unless it is an a minor subject like art.
None of what I have written is meant as a dig at Tab
except me saying that if you announce you are logic driven, it's a warning signal to me
When you insult or focus on the person you disagree with instead of their argument, that's a direct ad hom. If you announce that you are, essentially, really logical, or 'rational', think really well, you are telling and not showing.
Magnus Anderson wrote:The two terms are not identical but it's my impression that on average when someone says they are logical they are in fact claiming they are more realistic than the average person.
It might not be the case in this particular scenario, however. What do I know?
Logic vs emotion is almost the same as rational vs irrational and realistic vs unrealistic.
Where's Tabula Rasa to help us solve this problem?
FC wrote:Such claims tend to be made by people who equate the two.
Emotions are required for people to make sense to themselves. Theres been studies that show reason is impossible without emotion - because reason needs, as mentioned, a ground, and emotions are the best tool for us to discern and establish a ground.
But no one ever manages to prove it.
Because there is no grounds to prove it. How are you going to prove logical attitude or realism when you havent established criteria of demonstration.
Magnus Anderson wrote:I understand the word "logic" is commonly used to refer to deductive reasoning, which is, in a sense, rather dead, since it operates within a box (determined by initial premises.)
I do agree that the box itself, the set of initial assumptions that guide deductive reasoning, is not logically derived. But whould I say the box is constructed out of values? Yes and no. Depends on what you mean by "values".
As I said in the previous post, the box is a product of imagination and each one of us has a preferred way of making conjectures. In this limited sense, the box is indeed a matter of preference.
If all swans we've observed so far are white, what makes us think that all other swans in existence are also white?
Certainly not observation (we haven't observed all of the swans in the existence) and probably not deductive reasoning (I assume noone believes there's such a thing as an infinite chain of reasons which means there is at least one belief in the chain that is not derived from prior beliefs.)
The answer is imagination.
And how you're going to imagine things is up to you.
The rest is up to the universe.
Either you (and your ideas) continue to exist or you don't.
Fixed wrote:So, when you break down a logical formula, you're left with the values which cant be reduced to each other.
promethean75 wrote:ese' doesn't exist in the real world. These predicates don't reflect possible atomic properties or states in the world.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Fixed wrote:So, when you break down a logical formula, you're left with the values which cant be reduced to each other.
I would call those axioms or statements that are taken to be unconditionally true (which means they aren't derived from other statements.)
Fixed Cross wrote:Reason is inferior to geometry, in as far a solid conclusions are concerned, and thats just one form of thought superior to reason, though a very eminent one of course.
I do not consider geometry to be reason, but rather revelation.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users